My musical tastes match my taste in car shapes, insofar as sitting primarily between 1950 and 1980. But there’s an essential difference between these two life-affirming art forms for me. If I hear something on the radio from my favourite period that I don’t like, say Meatloaf, I switch it off. For me, hearing music I hate is like fingernails down a chalkboard. Can’t stand it.
With cars, I’m more inclined to sustain my gaze on a shape that doesn’t appeal to me. Like the Camargue for example.
In 1975, the Pininfarina-shaped Rolls-Royce Camargue was released to the market. It was 25% more expensive than the Rolls-Royce Corniche two-door and almost twice that of the Silver Shadow four-door.
Why anyone would pay that premium for this lump of meatloaf is beyond me.
Word was, the Camargue was the unhappy result of the switch from metric to imperial. Italian body shape prepared for English carmaker. But that was just the classic car mags having a dig.
It has a DNA inextricably linked to the Fiat 130 Coupe, having been conceived mere moments before that ageless classic. You couldn’t get more varied results from the same principles.
The Fiat 130 Coupe was born on my drawing board at that moment, and not to waste time I used the Rolls-Royce frame. So from a standing position I was drawing the 130 and sitting down I started the difficult Camargue.
This distended and twice-translated-but-never-nailed quote from Paolo Martin has always vexed me. I found it online and it needs its preceding sentences.
My impression is that he didn’t come to the Fiat shape – a brief he had been working on for a while – until he had received the Rolls-Royce brief. Up till then his Fiat had been something more cokebottle, so the Camargue brief must have prompted him to think of squarer lines for the large coupe.
I’d posit the above drawings sit at two moments of time. The top set Martin’s first thoughts, done in concert with the Fiat versions (which I can’t find).
The renderings under the white line might have come just after the first set, or a little while later. They show the car already moving away from its original and breathtaking thing.
The major difference between these two sets appears to be the placement of the front wheel.
In order to appreciate my point of view, you have to ascribe to the theory that the Fiat 130 is one of the highlights of automotive styling from any period. I’ve tried to express that in more depth here.
If you don’t hold that opinion, it’s hard to appreciate what Paolo Martin was staring at when he first put this shape to paper. I think he knew from that second he had conceived a masterpiece. In his mind he had imagined a low and wide coupe with flat surfacing and razor-sharp edges.
Nothing new there, but more significantly he had figured out a magic proportion for the volumes.
Paolo Martin was a rising talent within Pininfarina. he had joined a few years earlier, and had been involved with bringing Leonardo Fioravanti’s aerodynamica saloons to fruition. When the Rolls-Royce brief landed, he was also on the cusp of another masterpiece – the Modulo, which has his attention above (centre).
Just after he had been given the Camargue, Martin’s Mercedes-Benz 6.3 was displayed at the London Motor Show. I wonder whether anyone at Rolls-Royce started to have misgivings
His Bentley T was built by Pininfarina in 1968 for an individual hoping to convince Rolls-Royce to do a new Continental. It is nicer than the Camargue and should have been followed more closely. That might have been just a bit too indiscreet given Rolls-Royce decided to take this individual’s idea of a bespoke Pininfarina coupe and do it for themselves.
With the second set of drawings we can see Martin moving away from the original conception. It’s as if he consulted his brief after his initial moment of inspiration, and then started to refine it along those difficult parameters (the cowl had to be so high, etc.)
The front wheels have been sent forward, with axle-to-grille now shorter than axle-to-windscreen. And that makes a lot of the difference for the dynamism of the profile.
While the profile drawing has less frontal overhang than the 3/4s, it still has more than the final product.
But that magic proportional relationship is lost.
In the flesh, the production Camargue profile is one of the its most disappointing features. For some reason it reminds me of the Zephyr Mk3 in the rear flanks.
The front that really gets me. It looks like a mouth-breather.
Two fatal decisions – fattening, then deepening the grille; and setting the headlights outboard. The Silver Shadow had so perfectly continued the S3 Cloud’s quadlamp face, Crucial to this was that the twinset cluster hug the grille, with outboard turning signals setting the flank.
The Camargue got a fat grille from day one. Deepening it just made it worse. But the headlights are even more fatal. You can’t bring them closer to the grille because then they leave the bland outer corner exposed. The body spacing between grille and lights just makes the face look simple; wide-eyed.
The Camargue came to Rolls-Royce in a bit of a vacuum.
In 1969, chief stylist John Blatchley retired after 24 years as the primary hand on Rolls-Royce and Bentley motor car shapes. For much of that time, he’d worked in concert with Managing Director Dr Frederick Llewellyn-Smith and Chief Engineer Harry Grylls for the company’s vision and execution. He was the last of the three to leave.
That same year the Camargue was commissioned from Pininfarina; the reason for his leaving or the result of his absence?
Pininfarina had not worked with Rolls-Royce on a series production car before. They had done a number of private commissions on a Crewe chassis – one of which was seriously considered as the body for the 1952 Continental – and had also designed and built the prototypes for Jean Daninos’ Cresta series out of France.
Now in the hands of Renzo Carli and Sergio Pininfarina, the business continued to be the premier carrozzeria in the world. Bertone may have eclipsed them at the cutting edge lately, but the firm started by Battista Pinin Farina was still the benchmark across the industry for their capacity to manufacture as well as style.
They built the first Camargue prototype themselves to their own expectations.
The Pininfarina Catalogue states this in its Camargue entry;
Pininfarina was given utmost freedom of expression, provided the traditional characteristics of the Rolls-Royce products were maintained.
Derek Meddings had been given carte blanche to shape the Thunderbird’s Rolls-Royce; FAB 1. He needed to submit drawings for approval, and their only requirement was that the car never be referred to as a ‘Rolls’; always ‘Rolls-Royce’. Rolls-Royce even created a full-sized version of the FAB 1 grille so the production company could use it for closeups.
Sometime between the Fiat’s 1971 launch and the Camargue’s in 1975, the Rolls-Royce Board of Directors assembled at the helipad located within the company’s sporting fields. They were there to compare the Fiat 130 Coupe with their upcoming model.
If anyone there was seeing the emperor’s nipples, no-one did anything about it. They had more pressing issues at hand, such as an aircraft division with a whopping financial liability.
Rolls-Royce longtimer Fritz Feller eventually replaced John Blatchley. Curiously, he was an accomplished engineer worthy of mention in New Scientist magazine but he had not held a styling job before he took over the department at Rolls-Royce.
Feller considered the Bentley version’s face for his upcoming Silver Spirit generation, but that came to naught.
On the Camargue, it came to one – a single customer who requested a Bentley grille instead of a Rolls-Royce one.
Feller also tried showing Pininfarina how to improve one of their shapes. Not the sort of thing they were used to.
His suggestion to go rectangular with the headlights was met with much operatic hair-pulling. Sergio exclaimed he would ‘travel through rain and fog to be with his child’ if there was anything wrong with it.
Coachbuilder Hooper tried body-colour behind the headlights, and made the face look even more vacant.
On the other hand, the rear light strip from their Beau Rivage – a marked improvement.
What it should have sounded like.
William Towns’ 1976 Lagonda is as derided as the Camargue, but unfairly so. Here is a far more melodic symphony of prestige origami, a four-door sedan that exudes everything the two-door Camargue aspires to.
Not perfect; but exotic, dynamic, razor sharp and very finely crafted.
I’ve been seeing both the black and white Camargues for years now.
But in writing this piece, I discovered I’ve been looking at two different white ones. I’ve captured these with overlapping dates so I know its not just the refurbed same car. The one at the top has the chromework underneath the door glass, and it also has the side markers at the rear of the car.
You can see on the lower car that the body was actually contoured to meet the chrome, and the indent is still visible. This chrome was removed from post 1979 cars, and the front headlights earned wipers at the same time.
Thing is, neither the lower white car or the black one have the wiper washers, which leads me to believe these are earlier mdoels with the chrome removed.
John H managed to capture another local example in the same vein. No wipers, and no chrome trim.
He too has captured the black one, and writes up an excellent account of the car here including its numerous variants.
I wonder if my response to this car is merely the jealous mutterings of a churl, drowning amidst its abundance of prestige and pulchritude.
Nope. You can make this car more dynamic, but only through the lens. My eyes and brain and heart just don’t see it like this, no matter how much I want it to be.
If you want a masterclass in how to treat a Rolls-Royce in the 1970s, look no further than the Frua Phantoms.
First the elephant in the room. The car is an elephant. Constructed over the leviathan Phantom limousine chassis, the two examples built were oversized in every dimension. But their scale obscures their styling supremacy.
As Paolo Martin had also considered, the headlights are rectangular units. Crucially they hug the grille, and also define the outer edge. The grille itself – narrow but deep. Killer move.
Don’t believe me?
This is a Rolls-Royce mockup for a 1980s budget model.
That face is pure Frua Phantom, except for the addition of the 72 Galaxie bar through the grille. And it is a very pleasing facade – much, much nicer than the car that replaced the Shadow let alone the Camargue.
Perhaps when you see a 7/8 of the Frua’s profile you’ll get my picture.
That’s the sort of Rolls-Royce shape worth the 25% markup over a Corniche.
But still. I know how to enjoy a Camargue. Its most pleasing aspect is rear three-quarters from above. The angles, surfaces and volumes work here; nothing is awkward as it is up front.
So I am fortunate enough to capture a glimpse of this ungainly beast every now and then.
And occasionally I might get a sense of what could have been.
But what I really want to be hearing is this.
…
The Camargues of Melbourne on Curbside Classic
…
Thanks for taking me along for this ride through your musings, one that I always enjoy tremendously.
I agree with almost everything you’ve seen and said. The Camargue was deeply flawed and you’ve shown me even more concisely how and why, especially at the front end.
I also see a considerable problem with the rear of the roof. By making the C Pillar thinner than in the 130, and because of the limitations in the RR’s basic hard points, the rear wheels look to be too far forward. The roof should not arrive at the belt line behind the rear wheels, in this case. Frankly, the roof should probably just have been shorter overall, so that it looked more like a coupe than a 2-door sedan. or more sloping. or something.
This problem is accentuated by the too-narrow rear track of the RR chassis. This makes the body at the rear look too wide and massive for the overburdened and almost-lost rear wheels. Either the body should have somehow been a bit slimmer, or RR should have at least added some spacers to the rear hubs, or something like that. This problem compounds the problem of the overly large grille: aspects of the body overpower the rest of it, making it look decidedly inharmonious and ungainly.
I do think that rectangular headlights might have helped a bit, if properly integrated. That was the new trend at the time, and the round ones look already dated in this case, never mind their location issues.
The chrome trim under the side windows is a mystery. Clearly the original intent was to make that area above it black, to make the windows seem deeper, an old (and cheap) trick, yet the black paint was never applied. ?? But leaving on that molding anyway was an odd move.
Fatally flawed.
The chrome trim under the side windows is a mystery. Clearly the original intent was to make that area above it black, to make the windows seem deeper, an old (and cheap) trick, yet the black paint was never applied. ?? But leaving on that molding anyway was an odd move.
Chevrolet Volt and Opel Ampera come to the mind. Perhaps Rolls-Royce did try the black paint and saw the thick ‘eyeliners’ under the side windows didn’t seem so aristrocratic Rolls-Royce…
How about:
Thanks Paul. There is so much wrong with this shape, I touched on just a few things. I’ve never noticed the rear track thing before, something to look at next time.
That chrome under window and its original blacked-out intentions come, I believe, from the Gandini 125. Notice how the rear side window sits below the trunkline, and has to angle back up to meet the c-pillar.
I’ve also come to the conclusion (which you already noted) that the RR’s height alone was a major problem. The original design, and as expressed in the 130, was not for such a tall car. Adding that height changed the massing, making it top-heavy and slab-sided (in addition to the other issues).
I’ve noticed this problem with other PF designs when adapted to taller cars, like in the Cresta. PF’s pontoon style cars generally work great on his Italian-based low coupes and cabrios/spyders, but when they’re made taller, that can quickly become too much slab on the sides. It’s actually a universal problem with that design approach; it needs to be done in moderation. And it explains why it was soon superseded by designs with at least a subtle crease, like PF’s Florida or such.
The Camargue’s rear track issue is most noticeable from front-side views.
The blue “budget” model looks like some kind of Chrysler K-Car.
You beat me to it! I thought the same thing, the K-Car Imperial.
Yep! Does anyone else have any information on the “budget Rolls” proposal, by the way?
I was about to ask the same thing! A bit of a bombshell to drop in the middle of an article, I’m so curious now.
My first thought was that it looked like someone tacked an RR grille onto a Chrysler New Yorker, or like you said the K-Car Imperial.
It’s known as the SX mock-up. I’m running a short piece on it tomorrow.
I had never seen the connection between the Camargue and the Fiat 130. Andreina does a superb job of demonstrating the difference between getting it right and getting it wrong. It is rarely one big thing but rather many small compromises.
Great article. That Pininfarina Mercedes 6.3 is quite attractive for the most part but the front end is kind of a mess – the nose is chopped off a bit too abruptly and there are those nasty large rectangular holes surrounding the headlights. It appears the latter was fixed somewhere along the way afterwards.
The rear of the PininMerc coupe is too plain and generic, especially with taillights that look like they could have come off a cheap Euro sedan. It seems that for a long time Italian designers ran out of inspiration when it came to styling the back end of cars.
Very true. Lots of mediocre taillights in particular have come out of Italian design studios.
The photo of budget Rolls-Royce with Camargue imposed upon by this article’s contributor is from this website:
https://www.classicdriver.com/en/article/cars/crewe-secrets-inside-rolls-royce-bentleys-styling-department
It doesn’t mention anything about the ‘budget’ Rolls-Royce. Perhaps they were trying out different design and style elements throughout the late 1970s as to come up with successful formula for the successor of Silver Shadow.
I think Phantom VII and VIII are the most successful modern interpretation of what Rolls-Royce should be today. I saw the Phantom VIII at BMW Welt and was very impressed with its majestic presence.
Thank you!
It’s rather obvious from this image that this RR concept for a sporty sedan was significantly smaller than any previous RR, and targeted size-wise at the rather petite BMW 5 series. There’s no doubt this would have been a cheaper and higher volume car if the idea had been pursued.
Um, the BMW in the photo is E23 7-Series (1977-1987), which is slightly smaller than Silver Shadow. Without seeing more photos or knowing more information, it would be impossible to determine if it’s definitely the ‘budget’ Rolls-Royce.
Rolls-Royce didn’t have anything smaller and cheaper until Ghost derived from BMW F01 7-Series was introduced in 2010. It was probably good decision to have a smaller Rolls-Royce for some people who want something more sporty and don’t want ostentatious Phantom VII.
One more thing: I just noticed in the photo is all of cars in the background are Silver Spirit (1980-1998). I also looked up the BMW’s numberplate which ends in Y. According to the Wikipedia, Y is 1 August 1982 to 31 July 1983.
My bad. My point is still valid: if RR is benchmarking a concept against a BMW, it still implies that they were considering a smaller and cheaper car. The Silver Spirit was significantly taller; the lowness of this concept alone makes that point, to me anyway.
I wonder if that is related to the 1985 Project 90 concept?
http://www.rrab.com/proj90.htm#top
There was also the Java concept in the 1990s, and also the Vanden Plas Princess R with its 4L RR six was the result of RR and BMC investigating ‘doing something’.
How on earth did a lower cost Fiat carry the design so well and the overly expensive Rolls Royce muck it up so badly? Especially with the same designer?
I understand that the RR version had constraints from the factory on where many of the hard points needed to be, but with their cars being more bespoke and handcrafted, it seems that a bit more leeway could have been given. To me, it looks as if the body slid back from the original points and came to rest about a foot off of where it should have been.
As noted, the Lagonda, while not well received or respected, seems to be a more complete design, and certainly one that fit the moment. All straight lines, wedgy front, extra headlights, all made to look different from any luxury car out there. It was as if a Countach and a Rolls had an illicit affair, and the baby quickly adopted by someone desperate to have a baby. The Camargue, on the other hand, looked like an imposter’s baby foisted upon a childless royal family. Yeah, it provided an heir, but the genetics were off. Maybe that’s a good thing for a bloodline, but not for a luxury car company.
” It was as if a Countach and a Rolls had an illicit affair, and the baby quickly adopted by someone desperate to have a baby. The Camargue, on the other hand, looked like an imposter’s baby foisted upon a childless royal family. Yeah, it provided an heir, but the genetics were off. Maybe that’s a good thing for a bloodline, but not for a luxury car company”
Love it!
It has nothing to do with “lower cost”. Fiat paid Pininfarina for the design. Styling mistakes and excellence have been made repeatedly across all price classes.
Thanks for a clear analysis of why the Camargue was a flop compared to the far more elegant Corniche. RR styling seemed to lose its way in the 70s since in addition to the Camargue the Spirit series also seemed bulky and derivative, like a squared off Mercedes-Benz W126.
“I would drive anything for fun but I won’t buy that” – Meatloaf 🙂
I remember the Camargue being launched, in 1975. Apart from the brilliant (sic) timing, the big memories are of the reporting of the price of the thing and the angled grille.
The unbalanced looks took time to notice for a 13 year old, but the body looks to be 2 sizes too big for the chassis. When you get Don flagging the front wheel location and Paul calling out the rear pillar profile, you realise how this was a good idea effectively cut and shut to fit the Silver Shadow platform. To me though, the Mercedes 6.3 doesn’t cut it wither – it’s not special enough.
The original source photo of the compact concept shows the car against a 1982/3 BMW 7 series, giving a size comparison. Roll seemed to have learnt about the width issues of the Camargue, and ended up with something with almost vertical sides. To me, it looks like a Vauxhall/Opel Senator derivative, maybe a Holden Statesman suggestion. The site doesn’t give any background, but there must have been something else underneath it. Remember, Bentley showed a BMW 5 series based convertible in the mid 90s, so maybe the 7 series was underneath this?
so maybe the 7 series was underneath this?
BMW didn’t acquire Rolls-Royce Motor Cars until 1998.
Ironically, the latter of the 2 Frua Phantoms, the four door, used round headlights set in a rectangular opening, very much like those on the Camargue. However, they appear to be the larger, 7″ lights. The scale better fills the front end alongside the narrower grille.
You’re right about the larger roundies fitting the red one. I prefer the green one for a couple of reasons; slightly better face and the subtle cokebottle in its hips.
In profile, the green Frua Phantom has always reminded me of a ‘65 Olds 88, probably due to the coke bottle hips and the long rear overhang.
Great call. I love that Olds shape – real clean. It’s overshadowed by all the other GM fullsizers from that year but it holds its own.
I’d take that fastback and put it on the Frua, but make it just a bit more formal.
I’ve only ever seen one of these in the wild. Back in the late ’70s I saw one being driven in Yellowstone Park in Wyoming of all places. Aside from the questionable styling, I’m afraid that car was just too high priced, especially when compared to Rolls Royce’s own Corniche.
Great piece!
I’ll reserve judgement on the Camargue’s looks for when I see one in person. It’s been almost 28 years and I don’t think I’ve seen a single one…
I agree with you on the frontend and I can see how a more dramatic grille like the Frua Phantom’s, plus different headlights and such, could have improved things.
Curious to hear your thoughts on the Silver Spirit. Even though it came after the Camargue and in the midst of straight-line fever, it retains some gentle curves particularly at the C-pillar.
It’s almost like the Camargue was trying to bring Rolls into a new era of design but a brand like Rolls doesn’t really need to stay at the cutting edge of design…
Thanks William. I think the Spirit was right for the times, but for me its too much of a brick.
I was 14 when the Carmargue was introduced and from the beginning I thought it was ugly as sin. It was no better in person when I saw it at Roy Carver Rolls-Royce/Bentley/BMW.
It still reminds me of a bloated, ungainly 1966 Ford Galaxie 500 coupe. The Ford is attractive to me, but it’s like the Carmargue (and even more so that custom done Bentley T) had too much salt and it’s suffering from fluid retention.
I pretty much lost interest in Rollers after the ’50s. Now they are cartoon cars for the VERY wealthy, pretentious but without the charm of a Bentley Continental.
But a car & rock & roll fan and not like Mr. Loaf. “Paradise by the Dashboard Light” is a true turntable side classic.
Dave
A car I’m familiar with, but had no interest in then. Not so much now, either, but a detailed and insightful analysis, and historic images are always interesting. Two takeaways:
– Damn, that Fiat 130 coupe is gorgeous! It just doesn’t get old.
– Maybe I’ve been seeing too much B Body stuff here on CC, but the Camargue exudes Caprice-ness, particularly the Chevy’s 1980+ refresh.
For that matter, the Lagonda looks like a circa-1974 concept drawing of what would become the 1977 Caprice, come to life without any of the compromises toward functionality dictated by what a big Chevrolet had to be, do and cost.
You might enjoy this piece dman.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/curbside-classic-1972-77-fiat-130-coupe-bill-mitchells-regards/
I had never thought one way or another about the Camargue until I bought a copy of the following book on Ebay for 99 cents years ago.
I thought the title was great. The book cover illustration, beautiful. And for the price, why not?
John Bolster is one of the most interesting automotive writers I’ve read. Opinionated and a bit conceited, but a worthy read.
He waxes eloquently about the Camargue. In detail. i don’t recall now what he says about styling, but he was certainly head over heels about the way it drove and handled.
The key thing to me is the compromises that seem to have either been required for practicality or expediency – the taller or thicker body section of the production car compared to the earlier design sketches. Also the drawings show a more modestly-sized Bentley grille – presumably Rolls-Royce dictated the change of brand as well as the size of the grille. It definitely seems Thunderbirds-inspired.
The drawings show rectangular headlights that would not have been legal in the US at the time, which would have nixed that idea. The alternative quad round lights are spaced slightly further apart and would have made for better proportions IMO.
A great journey through the vicissitudes of a legendary marque and an equally legendary design house attempting (and failing) to do a car together.
Seeing the one-off Bentley T coupé again had me shaking my head in disbelief — they must have kicked themselves in Coventry over such a missed opportunity. Both RR and PF overplayed their hand on the Camargue, resulting in a dreadful design that came out too late.
It wasn’t the only near-miss, either. PF also did the Bentley Cresta back in the late ’40s, just to show that a Bentley with a continental body (designed by PF, built by Facel in France, with a few mods) was an appealing proposition. A dozen were made, but instead of building on this relative success, RR/Bentley abandoned the Cresta concept, allowing Facel to run with it alone, resulting in the creation of Facel-Vega.
So having failed to take a bite at the apple in 1950 and 1968, RR finally caved in for the third PF concept at a rather inauspicious time. And they got rewarded for their poor decision-making by having a giant Fiat 130 with a stupid grille, odd proportions and pointless side chrome trim. I know hindsight is for @rseholes, but the Camargue was probably the worst mistake both RR and PF ever committed to metal.
Thank you for this scrumptious post, Don.
Cheers T87. The PF Cresta came with a fat grille as well. Daninos wisely enthinnened it.
Hang on a mo there Mr F, that’s being a bit of a hindsight about Rolls, surely? The PF Bentleys were indeed sweet, but Rolls did take up their concept as their own in the Mulliner-Rolls designed R-type Continental, and made a success of it, no?
I need not add – but will – that the R is, when other delights don’t distract on the day, the best looking car ever made (a fact that some foolishly regard as a subjective opinion). They never did need PF!
One of the most amusing explanations of luxury automobiles that I ever heard was about the Cadillac V16. The story went, that 90% of the buyers of V16’s had no idea what a cylinder was but they knew that their car had 16 of them and that was more than anybody else’s car had. This car substituted cylinders for a huge purchase price.
I’ve always loved the Camargue, and think it looks great. The Frua looks like an Edsel.
How does one pronounce Camargue? It’s an awful sounding name. What does it mean?
The car is about as attractive as a 78 Pontiac LeMans coupe with Lincoln grill would be.
Ka-marg, with a hard G. It’s an area of southern France, on the coast famous for the horses, marshland and superb coastline. Thereby it links with Corniche, of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camargue
That Bentley T rear end is very close to that of the Opel Manta A. And for that reason it does not appear Bentley-esque to me.
I have always liked the Camargue, but not because it’s beautiful but more for its presence. It looks like the boss has arrived when you see one of these.
yep
I’d take the Fab 1 over the Carmargue any day 😁
The Lagonda looks like ass too.
The 130 Coupe is a timeless masterpiece, and it is a fascinating study in how 2 broadly similar designs (even by the same design house) can be spectacularly successfull (or not).
I suppose a car named after a swamp was always going to be irredeemable. The rear roof pillar , as PN says, stops past the rear wheels, a hopeless clumsiness (which also blights the Mercedes R107). The car generally gives the impression of sloping upwards from toe to tip, and ends in a face that not only looks dopey but incomplete. The whole has none of the svelte, linear surface chiselling along the top of the doors/fenders from front to back nor the sharpish mid-fender/doorline crease nor the neat downward fold across the bonnet all of which helps distinguish the lovely 130.
You’d have to suspect, Don, that the 130 was definitely first, and Martin thought “Eureka, my signature!” and confidently applied it to the ill-suited limitations of the Shadow’s floorpan and (perhaps crucially) it’s scuttle height, especially in relation to the narrowness of the car. Try as you might, kid, that shirt just isn’t gonna fit even though you’ve managed to get it on – and now we’re leaving, you’ll just have to wear it.
I’m mystified by your comments about the Frua cars as being an answer (to at least the face). They’re…well, not. To me, actually worse. You make a brilliant point about the way the 4-light Shadow face left the edges for indicators, etc, but square wasn’t the answer either, let alone a bumper-splitting super-Parthenon grille in between. And I can’t hear any tune at all in the Lagonda. What you see as “finely crafted” seems to me crude and quite naive (in the aesthetic sense). It wasn’t what could have been.
The post, ofcourse, is just a wonderful stroll through your learned thoughts, (and where mine don’t gel, I’d be fairly confident of being “wrong” in the design sense), and I thank you for these insightful musings.
No, I think the Camargue was first.
In his mind Martin pictured something like the 130 with a RR grille. When it came to putting down on paper, the Camargue drifted away from the concept while the Fiat stayed firm. I’m not sure he would have come to the Fiat had he not imagined a large square-rigged coupe for Rolls.
Here is how the Fiat was looking before this moment.
Ah, I see. That is still rather nice, but here and there a bit derivative, perhaps (Monitverdi/Montreal nose, US-ish slotted C-pillar?), and certainly not the 130 as made.
Perhaps after all there really is some truth in the metric/non-metric stories, as in Martin just misconceived the essential dimensions RR needed him to use, for even in the early Carmargue sketches you’ve shown, the shape isn’t great, (to me). And then when the Fiat commission came along, he had the car to fit the proportions of his Roller dream.
The metric/imperial thing was just a bit of cheek from the pom scribes. Pininfarina delivered a body, not drawings. It was never changed in the four years before its launch, so most blame goes with them.
The English classic car journo and Fiat 130 nutter Martin Buckley interviewed a not-young Paolo Martin at his Italian home, and there was definitely a mention by PM of problems with either a) the Rolls’ dimensions for PF to work with being all still Imperial (and in English) & having to be re-done or b) the body delivered back to RR having NO dimensioning as it wasn’t part of the contract and/or if it did, it was all in metric. Either way, c) it could potentially impact on a produced object in terms of proportion or d) for smart people, it’s hard work but entirely fix-able and likely was and f) I am very irritated that I can’t remember which of the above OR find the damn Classic and Sportscar article of approx 2012 in which the bloody interview happened!
Oh, and g) in reality, it’s highly unlikely any such malarkey affected the unfortunate outcome anyway.
And, h) I am tired now, but i), who wouldn’t be?
All just post-rationalising methinks.
This issue doesn’t seem to have afflicted any other car I can think of that crossed the metric/imperial divide. And PF had spent most of the 1960s working with BMC.
I think we’ve covered most of the flaws with the front and profile of the car but what about the rear?
The basic shape is not bad, but I find it rather boring and those taillights look like they came out of the parts bin for a camper trailer.
But I’m a Meatloaf fan, so what do I know? 🙂
I rushed through this yesterday and needed to come back to it this morning. This was always a car I felt I should like but just didn’t really. Thank you for explaining what my gut perceived. It is funny how little distance there can be between a design that is successful and one that is not.
Camargue: design and coachbuilding gone awry. Its happened many times to many great marques. Its the downside cost of clean-slate creativity. Sometimes it works, sometimes it just doesn’t.
Re: naming a car after marshland. I have visited the Camargue region in the south of France, and as marshland goes, it was far more interesting than the Sacramento River Delta in California. The RR Camargue, on the other hand is less interesting to me than an Oldsmobile Delta … let alone a Lancia Delta. It takes more than a name to cripple a car.